Raytheon reveals first glimpse of next-generation missile
By Stephen Trimble

Raytheon has offered the first peek into the company's approach to designing a next generation missile to replace both the AIM-120 AMRAAM and AGM-88 HARM.

For the first time, the company has displayed a full-scale mock-up of one of several candidates being considered for the emerging US Air Force requirement for a dual role air dominance missile (DRADM).

The design shown at the Air Warfare Sympsoium on 16-17 February features an AMRAAM-like missile body integrated with what appears to be a variable flow ducted rocket (VFDR), or ramjet

In the short term at least, Raytheon should be contracted to develop an air-launched ESSM variant 'multi-mission missile' (MMM-162). imho.

Something which is 'existing weapons-bay-compatible' and which includes MOTS missile body (inherent long-range as is), data-links and existing or under development MOTS guidance seekers (e.g., GPS/inert, NCADE IIR and possible mmW(?)).

Is is any better than the Meteor, which is already designed to fit the AIM-120 footprint? If not, then I'd just swallow my pride and buy the European hardware. However, I'm very interested in a HARM replacement that fits in the F-35/F-22 weapons bays. I hope it works out.

Last edited by 1st503rdsgt on 19 Feb 2011, 23:38, edited 1 time in total.

The AIM-120D/D+ is a considerably different missile than the A model, just like the AIM-9X bears little resemblance to original. Don't get hung up on the nomenclature- it's the capabilities that matter.

Wonder how it'll stack up vs the ALARM (Air Launched Anti Radiation Missile) which I understand is slightly better than the American HARM missiles due to the ALARMS ability to loiter over the target. Which I admit would be a real @#%!! to put into something that's also meant to be used air to air. Like popcorn and others I'm curious to see the spec's on this thing.

A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.

wrightwing wrote:The AIM-120D/D+ is a considerably different missile than the A model, just like the AIM-9X bears little resemblance to original. Don't get hung up on the nomenclature- it's the capabilities that matter.

I'm sure there are some changes to the electronics and even to the propulsion system but the USA does tend to get hung up on rather small missile diameter frames and trying to cram more into them.

Is it too hard to design a frame that is a little bigger leaving more room for the designers and future upgrades?

Regarding your thought that a 'little bigger' body could be practical, given all the various requirements of performance and modern capabilities at extended ranges, I'd too be in that camp of thought. One problem I could identify on this point... yeah, here we go again... is a design requirement to be a 'do EVERYTHING capability'.

On this point, I'd argue with those then who would assess it's better (and perhaps cheaper, quicker to develop and more reliable) to develop specialized missiles, albeit possibly using the same airframe body.

For that reason, I would favor an accelerated, alternative interim approach... something to at least take a time-out over, step back and consider in relation to simply pre-conceiving JDRADM as THE one and only game-changing medium missile for the next decade. Hence, the MOTS-based AIM/MMM-162 class as an example only.

Perhaps then, 2-3 different specialized seeker configurations could be phased into development, encompassing specialized primary engagement capabilities and some secondary capabilities. Regardless, the point about the interim option potentially being brought into fruition sooner, in preliminary multi-mode A2A capability and cost less in funding should be a worthy consideration (especially given SecDEF's latest remarks about needing to cut future R&D and planning for reduced buying power year over year). So this 'stopgap' option is very much a viable HEDGE against possible JDRADM uncertainties, imho.

---------------------------

*And btw Shep - I beg your pardon but upon reviewing the above linked thread there is nothing relevant lending any technical evidence of such a hypothetical AIM/MMM-162 (ESSM) being impractical. Only the obvious conjecture that such an evolved AIM/MMM (multi-mission missile) variant, if feasible, would require normal development work, is found in the thread linked.

Geogen, I'm probably not the best person to discuss budget concerns with. I support just about ANY new non-COIN centered weapon for the USArmed Forces regardless of cost. So, yeah go interim, go further out, just go with something new and more capable. And go away from COIN!!

FlightDreamz wrote:Wonder how it'll stack up vs the ALARM (Air Launched Anti Radiation Missile) which I understand is slightly better than the American HARM missiles due to the ALARMS ability to loiter over the target. Which I admit would be a real @#%!! to put into something that's also meant to be used air to air. Like popcorn and others I'm curious to see the spec's on this thing.

i think they approach the SEAD mission differently. ALARM has the capability to fly high then deploy a parachute to loiter over the target area then engage the radar once it is switched back on.
The DRADM, from my understanding, relies on a much higher speed (perhaps double that of ALARM - my estimate) combined with a GPS location fix for the last known target location with terminal guidance from its onboard sensor suite to effect a kill.

PopcornThe DRADM, from my understanding, relies on a much higher speed (perhaps double that of ALARM - my estimate) combined with a GPS location fix for the last known target location with terminal guidance from its onboard sensor suite to effect a kill.

Interesting so a faster home on kill capability as compared to the ALARM's loiter. Thanks for the info Popcorn:thumb:

A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.